Answered by Legionary of Christ
Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina
Apostolorum university.

Q: What is the bishop's authority when it comes to a pandemic
such as the H1N1 virus? Our local bishop has not only removed
the sign of peace at Mass in order to avoid handshakes, forbade
the reception of the Eucharist on the tongue, removed the
possibility for the faithful to receive the blood of Christ, and
emptied the blessed water in all the churches of our diocese,
but he has officially asked all parishioners to not attend Mass
on Sunday if they have a cough. I find this measure a little
extreme when our town has not yet had any real case of this
virus and our province has had very few cases as a total. Is a
cough really an excuse to not attend Sunday Mass? —
M.J., Province of Alberta

A: There are really two questions involved. One regards the
extent of the bishop's authority when it comes to responding to
a pandemic, the other regarding a particular prudential judgment
by a bishop.

With respect to the first question, all of the measures
mentioned by our correspondent would fall under the bishop's
general overall authority to regulate the liturgy and to
dispense from disciplinary laws in particular cases. It is
understood that most of these are temporary measures. The bishop
would have the authority to permanently regulate some of these
elements such as the gesture for the sign of peace and the
availability of Communion under both species as the law already
places the regulation of these elements under his authority.

Others, such as the prohibition against receiving Communion on
the tongue, can be enacted as an emergency measure by the bishop
but could not be made permanent or general without an indult
from the Holy See.

The practices outlined by the bishop in this case are basically
preventive measures that seek to avoid the spread of a possible
pandemic and reduce the risk of infection.

In more serious cases, such as being in the midst of an actual
pandemic, the bishop could even take more drastic action. Thus
during the initial outbreak of this flu, when the malady was
still poorly understood, the cardinal archbishop of Mexico City
even went so far as to cancel all public Masses for a couple of
weeks until the danger subsided.

With respect to the second question, I believe it is necessary
to defer to the bishop's prudential judgment in reaching a
decision. Since most bishops are not doctors of medicine they
would usually consult with experts and with public health
authorities regarding appropriate actions to take in the face on
an objective risk. We have to suppose that your bishop took
these steps and made his decision in the light of informed
advice.

For example, in normal circumstances a mild cough would not
necessarily excuse an otherwise healthy person from attending
Sunday Mass. If, however, the person was as yet unaware as to
the cause of the symptom (be it the common cold, regular
seasonal flu or this new strain), he should prudently not expose
himself and others to risk until the issue has been duly
clarified.

* * *

Follow-up: Guarding
Against Swine Flu [11-10-2009]

Coinciding with our Oct. 27 piece on swine flu and the Mass, the
Archdiocese of Boston published a series of directives, excerpts
of which we report below. They may serve as models for other
dioceses facing similar situations:

"The Archdiocese of Boston Office of Worship, in consultation
with local health authorities and the Archdiocesan Office of
Risk Management, continues to encourage the clergy and faithful
to observe necessary standard precautions to protect the health
of others during this flu season, and especially with the risks
related to H1N1 influenza. The best way to prevent the spread of
contagious disease is to practice good hygiene.

"Rev. Jonathan Gaspar, Co-Director of the Office of Worship and
Spiritual Life, said, 'Given the extraordinary precautions being
taken across the nation to prevent the spread of the H1N1
influenza, the Archdiocese has instituted a series of steps to
be followed for the time being during the celebration of the
Mass. We thank our priests, deacons, religious and parishioners
for their understanding and support of these directives, which
aim to protect the health of our people.' [...]

"In addition to practicing good hygiene, the Cardinal directs
the following for the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy and for
flu prevention:

"—
The Holy Water fonts are to be drained, cleaned with a
disinfecting soap, and re-filled with holy water on a regular
basis. Please note that old holy water should be disposed of in
the sacrarium.

"—
The distribution of the Precious Blood for the faithful is
suspended, with the exception of those who must receive from the
cup due to medical reasons. The faith of the Church teaches that
Christ, whole and entire, is received even under only one
species.

"—
The exchange of the Sign of Peace is to be offered without any
physical contact. If the priest celebrant chooses to extend the
invitation for the sign of peace, the faithful, instead of a
handshake, may bow to the persons nearby.

"—
While the faithful retain the option of receiving Holy Communion
on the tongue or in the hand, all ministers of Holy Communion
are advised to distribute the consecrated hosts with care, being
cautious not to touch the tongue or the hand of the communicant.

"—
Parishioners should be reminded that if they are ill or suspect
they are ill with a contagious illness, they are not bound by
the Sunday Mass obligation. They should remain at home and
return to church when they are well.

"These directives are effective Saturday, October 31, 2009 and
remain in effect until the cold and flu season has come to an
end."

It is noteworthy that the archdiocese did not ban the reception
of Communion on the tongue. Since these directives were made in
consultation with local health authorities, it would appear that
this usage is no more likely to spread infection than hand
contact.

Some other readers asked if it was correct for the priest and
extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to disinfect their
hands immediately before distributing Communion.

While such a practice is well meant, it is probably unnecessary
and might be counterproductive by making some susceptible people
queasy about approaching the altar. If such a precaution is
deemed worthwhile, it is probably sufficient to do so in the
sacristy just before Mass, especially if the above-mentioned
measures outlined for the Boston Archdiocese are also carried
out.

* * *

Follow-up: Guarding Against
Swine Flu [11-24-2009]

After our comments on precautions against swine flu (see Oct. 27
and follow-up on Nov. 10), a reader asked: "At the monastery
infirmary, because of their weakened health and the risk of
getting the H1N1 infection, priest monks who are concelebrating
the Mass do not receive the Precious Blood. I was wondering if
that is permitted."

There are two questions involved. One is if it is possible for a
concelebrating priest not to receive both species. The answer to
this is positive, even though only in grave conditions. The only
situation where this permission has been specifically granted is
for those priests unable to take any alcohol. This is allowed
only for a non-presiding concelebrant and never for a lone
celebrant.

The second question is if the desire to prevent infection is a
sufficient reason for concelebrating priests not to receive the
Precious Blood. I would say that this is not a sufficient
reason, even though it is possible that some of these infirm
priests might fall into the category of those unable to take
alcohol.

It should be a fairly easy task to develop a method for
distributing both species that can practically exclude any
danger of contagion while maintaining due reverence for the
sacred species. For example, the priests could receive by
intinction or even, if necessary, using suitable separate
spoons.